Case-Matched Outcomes of Proton Beam and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

Purpose: Although both intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) offer effective long-term disease control for localized prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data directly comparing the 2 modalities. Methods: The data from 334 patients treated with conventionally fractionated (79.2 GyRBE in 44 fractions) PBT or IMRT were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to balance factors associated with biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS). Age, race, and comorbidities (not BFFS associates) remained imbalanced after matching. Univariable and covariate-adjusted multivariable (MVA) Cox regression models were used to determine if modality affected BFFS. Results: Of 334 patients, 176 (52.7%) were included in the matched cohort with exact matching to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. With a median follow-up time of 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.8-10.2 years), long-term BFFS was similar between the IMRT and PBT matched arms with 8-year estimates of 85% (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 91% (95% CI: 82%-96%, P = .39), respectively. On MVA, modality was not significantly associated with BFFS in both the unmatched (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.35-1.63, P = .47) and matched (HR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.33-2.33, P = .78) cohorts. Prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and overall survival (OS) were also similar (P > .05). However, in an unmatched analysis, the PBT arm had significantly fewer incidences of secondary cancers within the irradiated field (0.6%, 95% CI: 0.0%-3.1% versus 4.5%, 95% CI: 1.8%-9.0%, P = .028). Conclusions: Both PBT and IMRT offer excellent long-term disease control for PCa, with no significant differences between the 2 modalities in BFFS, PCSS, and OS in matched patients. In the unmatched cohort, fewer incidences of secondary malignancy were noted in the PBT group; however, owing to overall low incidence of secondary cancer and imbalanced patient characteristics between the 2 groups, these data are strictly hypothesis generating and require further investigation.

Using Holistic Residency Applicant Review and Selection in Radiation Oncology to Enhance Diversity and Inclusion-An ASTRO SCAROP-ADROP-ARRO Collaboration.

Disproportionate sex, racial, and ethnic diversity remains in the radiation oncology physician workforce despite widespread awareness and longitudinal efforts to improve representation. In this collaborative review, we define the rationale and components of holistic review and how it can be best used to provide a comprehensive evaluation of applicants to residency programs in radiation oncology. We initially discuss the current state of diversity in the field of radiation oncology and highlight the components of the residency selection process that may serve to perpetuate existing biases. Subsequently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and Association of American Medical Colleges holistic review framework is reviewed in detail to demonstrate the balanced assessment of potential applicants. The implementation of holistic review in medical school and residency selection to date is examined to underscore the potential value of holistic review in the radiation oncology residency selection process. Finally, recommendations for the practical implementation of holistic review in radiation oncology trainee selection are outlined.

External Beam Radiation Therapy With or Without Brachytherapy Boost in Men With Very-High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Large Multicenter International Consortium Analysis.

PURPOSE: Very-high-risk (VHR) prostate cancer (PC) is an aggressive subgroup with high risk of distant disease progression. Systemic treatment intensification with abiraterone or docetaxel reduces PC-specific mortality (PCSM) and distant metastasis (DM) in men receiving external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Whether prostate-directed treatment intensification with the addition of brachytherapy (BT) boost to EBRT with ADT improves outcomes in this group is unclear. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This cohort study from 16 centers across 4 countries included men with VHR PC treated with either dose-escalated EBRT with ≥24 months of ADT or EBRT + BT boost with ≥12 months of ADT. VHR was defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria (clinical T3b-4, primary Gleason pattern 5, or ≥2 NCCN high-risk features), and results were corroborated in a subgroup of men who met Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) trials inclusion criteria (≥2 of the following: clinical T3-4, Gleason 8-10, or PSA ≥40 ng/mL). PCSM and DM between EBRT and EBRT + BT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 270 underwent EBRT and 101 EBRT + BT. After a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 6.7% and 5.9% of men died of PC and 16.3% and 9.9% had DM after EBRT and EBRT + BT, respectively. There was no significant difference in PCSM (sHR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.57-3.75]; P = .42) or DM (sHR, 0.72, [95% CI, 0.30-1.71]; P = .45) between EBRT + BT and EBRT. Results were similar within the STAMPEDE-defined VHR subgroup (PCSM: sHR, 1.67 [95% CI, 0.48-5.81]; P = .42; DM: sHR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.15-2.04]; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: In this VHR PC cohort, no difference in clinically meaningful outcomes was observed between EBRT alone with ≥24 months of ADT compared with EBRT + BT with ≥12 months of ADT. Comparative analyses in men treated with intensified systemic therapy are warranted.

Genomic Testing in Localized Prostate Cancer Can Identify Subsets of African Americans With Aggressive Disease.

BACKGROUND: Personalized genomic classifiers have transformed the management of prostate cancer (PCa) by identifying the most aggressive subsets of PCa. Nevertheless, the performance of genomic classifiers to risk classify African American men is thus far lacking in a prospective setting. METHODS: This is a prospective study of the Decipher genomic classifier for National Comprehensive Cancer Network low- and intermediate-risk PCa. Study-eligible non-African American men were matched to African American men. Diagnostic biopsy specimens were processed to estimate Decipher scores. Samples accrued in NCT02723734, a prospective study, were interrogated to determine the genomic risk of reclassification (GrR) between conventional clinical risk classifiers and the Decipher score. RESULTS: The final analysis included a clinically balanced cohort of 226 patients with complete genomic information (113 African American men and 113 non-African American men). A higher proportion of African American men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-classified low-risk (18.2%) and favorable intermediate-risk (37.8%) PCa had a higher Decipher score than non-African American men. Self-identified African American men were twice more likely than non-African American men to experience GrR (relative risk [RR] = 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02 to 4.90; P = .04). In an ancestry-determined race model, we consistently validated a higher risk of reclassification in African American men (RR = 5.26, 95% CI = 1.66 to 16.63; P = .004). Race-stratified analysis of GrR vs non-GrR tumors also revealed molecular differences in these tumor subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of genomic classifiers with clinically based risk classification can help identify the subset of African American men with localized PCa who harbor high genomic risk of early metastatic disease. It is vital to identify and appropriately risk stratify the subset of African American men with aggressive disease who may benefit from more targeted interventions.

Comparison of Multimodal Therapies and Outcomes Among Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Adverse Clinicopathologic Features.

Importance: The optimal management strategy for high-risk prostate cancer and additional adverse clinicopathologic features remains unknown. Objective: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer after definitive treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with high-risk prostate cancer (as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN]) and at least 1 adverse clinicopathologic feature (defined as any primary Gleason pattern 5 on biopsy, clinical T3b-4 disease, ≥50% cores with biopsy results positive for prostate cancer, or NCCN ≥2 high-risk features) treated between 2000 and 2014 at 16 tertiary centers. Data were analyzed in November 2020. Exposures: Radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or EBRT plus brachytherapy boost (BT) with ADT. Guideline-concordant multimodal treatment was defined as RP with appropriate use of multimodal therapy (optimal RP), EBRT with at least 2 years of ADT (optimal EBRT), or EBRT with BT with at least 1 year ADT (optimal EBRT with BT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was prostate cancer-specific mortality; distant metastasis was a secondary outcome. Differences were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Fine-Gray competing risk regression models. Results: A total of 6004 men (median [interquartile range] age, 66.4 [60.9-71.8] years) with high-risk prostate cancer were analyzed, including 3175 patients (52.9%) who underwent RP, 1830 patients (30.5%) who underwent EBRT alone, and 999 patients (16.6%) who underwent EBRT with BT. Compared with RP, treatment with EBRT with BT (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 0.78, [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03) or with EBRT alone (sHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.92]; P = .01) was associated with significantly improved prostate cancer-specific mortality; there was no difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between EBRT with BT and EBRT alone (sHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.67-1.18]; P = .43). No significant differences in prostate cancer-specific mortality were found across treatment cohorts among 2940 patients who received guideline-concordant multimodality treatment (eg, optimal EBRT alone vs optimal RP: sHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.52-1.09]; P = .14). However, treatment with EBRT alone or EBRT with BT was consistently associated with lower rates of distant metastasis compared with treatment with RP (eg, EBRT vs RP: sHR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.44-0.58]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that among patients with high-risk prostate cancer and additional unfavorable clinicopathologic features receiving guideline-concordant multimodal therapy, prostate cancer-specific mortality outcomes were equivalent among those treated with RP, EBRT, and EBRT with BT, although distant metastasis outcomes were more favorable among patients treated with EBRT and EBRT with BT. Optimal multimodality treatment is critical for improving outcomes in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Prognostic Stage Group System for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer Using Disease-Specific Mortality Results From the International Staging Collaboration for Cancer of the Prostate.

Importance: In 2016, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) established criteria to evaluate prediction models for staging. No localized prostate cancer models were endorsed by the Precision Medicine Core committee, and 8th edition staging was based on expert consensus. Objective: To develop and validate a pretreatment clinical prognostic stage group system for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multinational cohort study included 7 centers from the United States, Canada, and Europe, the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers collaborative (5 centers), and the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry (43 centers) (the STAR-CAP cohort). Patients with cT1-4N0-1M0 prostate adenocarcinoma treated from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2013 (follow-up completed December 31, 2017). The STAR-CAP cohort was randomly divided into training and validation data sets; statisticians were blinded to the validation data until the model was locked. A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cohort was used as a second validation set. Analysis was performed from January 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019. Exposures: Curative intent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). Based on a competing-risk regression model, a points-based Score staging system was developed. Model discrimination (C index), calibration, and overall performance were assessed in the validation cohorts. Results: Of 19 684 patients included in the analysis (median age, 64.0 [interquartile range (IQR), 59.0-70.0] years), 12 421 were treated with RP and 7263 with radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 71.8 (IQR, 34.3-124.3) months; 4078 (20.7%) were followed up for at least 10 years. Age, T category, N category, Gleason grade, pretreatment serum prostate-specific antigen level, and the percentage of positive core biopsy results among biopsies performed were included as variables. In the validation set, predicted 10-year PCSM for the 9 Score groups ranged from 0.3% to 40.0%. The 10-year C index (0.796; 95% CI, 0.760-0.828) exceeded that of the AJCC 8th edition (0.757; 95% CI, 0.719-0.792), which was improved across age, race, and treatment modality and within the SEER validation cohort. The Score system performed similarly to individualized random survival forest and interaction models and outperformed National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) risk grouping 3- and 4-tier classification systems (10-year C index for NCCN 3-tier, 0.729; for NCCN 4-tier, 0.746; for Score, 0.794) as well as CAPRA (10-year C index for CAPRA, 0.760; for Score, 0.782). Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large, diverse international cohort treated with standard curative treatment options, a proposed AJCC-compliant clinical prognostic stage group system for prostate cancer has been developed. This system may allow consistency of reporting and interpretation of results and clinical trial design.

Effect of Eischens Yoga During Radiation Therapy on Prostate Cancer Patient Symptoms and Quality of Life: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: A randomized phase II study was performed to measure the potential therapeutic effects of yoga on fatigue, erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and overall quality of life (QOL) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing external beam radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The participants were randomized to yoga and no-yoga cohorts (1:1). Twice-weekly yoga interventions were offered throughout the 6- to 9-week courses of RT. Comparisons of standardized assessments were performed between the 2 cohorts for the primary endpoint of fatigue and the secondary endpoints of erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and QOL before, during, and after RT. RESULTS: From October 2014 to January 2016, 68 eligible PCa patients underwent informed consent and agreed to participate in the study. Of the 68 patients, 18 withdrew early, mostly because of treatment schedule-related time constraints, resulting in 22 and 28 patients in the yoga and no-yoga groups, respectively. Throughout treatment, those in the yoga arm reported less fatigue than those in the control arm, with global fatigue, effect of fatigue, and severity of fatigue subscales showing statistically significant interactions (P<.0001). The sexual health scores (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire) also displayed a statistically significant interaction (P=.0333). The International Prostate Symptom Score revealed a statistically significant effect of time (P<.0001) but no significant effect of treatment (P=.1022). The QOL measures had mixed results, with yoga having a significant time by treatment effect on the emotional, physical, and social scores but not on functional scores. CONCLUSIONS: A structured yoga intervention of twice-weekly classes during a course of RT was associated with a significant reduction in pre-existing and RT-related fatigue and urinary and sexual dysfunction in PCa patients.

African American men with low-grade prostate cancer have increased disease recurrence after prostatectomy compared with Caucasian men.

PURPOSE: To explore whether disparities in outcomes exist between African American (AA) and Caucasian (CS) men with low-grade prostate cancer and similar cancer of the prostate risk assessment-postsurgery (CAPRA-S) features following prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: The overall cohort consisted of 1,265 men (234 AA and 1,031 CS) who met the National comprehensive cancer network criteria for low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer and underwent RP between 1990 and 2012. We first evaluated whether clinical factors were associated with adverse pathologic outcomes and freedom from biochemical failure (FFbF) using the entire cohort. Next, we studied a subset of 705 men (112 AA and 593 CS) who had pathologic Gleason score≤6 (low-grade disease). Using this cohort, we determined whether race affected FFbF in men with RP-proven low-grade disease and similar CAPRA-S scores. RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 27 months, the overall 7-year FFbF rate was 86% vs. 79% in CS and AA men, respectively (P = 0.035). There was no significant difference in one or more adverse pathologic features between CS vs. AA men (27% vs. 31%; P = 0.35) or CAPRA-S score (P = 0.28). In the subset analysis of patients with low-grade disease, AA race was associated with worse FFbF outcomes (P = 0.002). Furthermore, AA race was a significant predictor of FFbF in men with low-grade disease (hazard ratio = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.08-3.72; P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: AA race is a predictor of worse FFbF outcomes in men with low-grade disease after RP. These results suggest that a subset of AA men with low-grade disease may benefit from more aggressive treatment.